United States v. 2020-12-08 | 20-10061 | USA V. ERIK CAMACHO-MEDINA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ERIK ISAAC CAMACHO-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10061

D.C. No.
4:18-cr-00131-RM-LAB-3

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Erik Isaac Camacho-Medina appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the order of forfeiture imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-10061
and we affirm.
Camacho-Medina contends that the district court lacked sufficient evidence
to impose the $10,307.20 money judgment contained in the order of forfeiture.
However, the record reflects that Camacho-Medina stipulated to forfeiture of the
challenged sum as part of his guilty plea. Accordingly, the district court did not err
by not requiring the government to present additional evidence in support of the
sum. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B); United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235,
1244 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In most cases, an admission by the defendant suffices to
prove the factual basis for criminal forfeiture.”), abrogated on other grounds by
Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017).
AFFIRMED.